As I said in my last post, I wrote a response to Brian McLaren on the introduction to his “Clean Energy Conversation” series, questioning the idea of “we” doing something about the problem of dirty energy. He responded to my email publicly. A week later I emailed him some further thoughts on the subject of “we,” though I have yet to read a response personally or on his website (which is where he typically responds).
With Brian’s permission, I am reprinting the second letter below:
Brian,
I want to first thank you for the thoughtful response to my questions, and for your time in addressing them. I’m grateful for your insight, and appreciative of your “learner’s spirit.” Both of us have in common that we’re very willing to be wrong, even if we’re convinced we’re pretty well on track with something.
The quick points first:
I don’t believe you were (or are) advocating communism or socialism. My point was merely that such schemes of price control are not components of free societies but of those whose goal is to orchestrate good behavior among citizens for particular ends. F.A. Hayek identified this problem as “the pretense of knowledge.” And even while you are only talking about a particular policy, energy is a critical and integral component to just about every facet of our lives, and would be an enormous intervention (that’s not necessarily problematic, just a point I was making).
I also didn’t assume you believe that “all would be well” with the right laws or a good clean energy policy. As you correctly noted, today’s solutions typically produce tomorrow’s problems. Given the knowledge problem (noted above), and the issue of “we” I explain below, I’m unconvinced that repricing is a viable solution to the energy problem.
Last (of the quick things), when I wrote, “I cannot help but laugh at the notion that the right laws will actually make our society better,” I wasn’t implying that there are no such things as good laws. I was merely pointing out that laws can only do so much and laws that “make society better” come with a cost. Some laws clean things up on the outside, but cause resentment and bitterness among people groups that might have been reconciled by different means. All remedies have unseen consequences.
Now to the heart of the conversation. As I reflected over the past few days upon what you said, I think I’ve identified more of my core concerns over the use of the word “we.” You and I probably agree that each of us has to work within the social and political structures within which we live. But I also would guess we agree that settling for the status quo can be dangerous if we accept it for what it is, rather than challenge its existence, what it stands for, and the destruction it is wreaking.
A large component of justice is the proper use of power. I’m sure there is more to the definition of justice (as there always is), but with regards to power and authority, how such power is delegated and implemented is very key. And this is where the “we” gets really messy.
“We” can be delineated in a million different ways. “We” could be the people of a county, a state, a nation, or a continent. “We” could be the people of a racial segment of society. “We” could be the people of the Gulf States, or the East Coast, or the West Coast. However “we” is defined, the larger the group, the less meaningful it becomes. Americans are accustomed to thinking about “we” in terms of national identity, in part because we are conditioned to think in terms of “nations.” Yet on a national scale of 300 million people, “we” becomes a precarious entity because the hands of power are concentrated at the top. Phrases such as “shared action” become very diluted the more and more people we include. It also means that more voices become unheard and their needs go unaddressed in the process.
When power gets concentrated by placing it in the hands of those who are at the top, “we” becomes meaningless and justice is sacrificed for political ends. It also invites corporations to lobby for power, thus resulting in Big Retail, Big Oil, and perhaps eventually Big Corn and Big Wind. Volleying the hands of power may result in gain for the Big Guy, but I doubt either of us likes the idea of “Big Business.” But when power is spread throughout society in such a way that more and more people have control over their own lives and property (and those property rights are protected), unjust authority and power structures begin to erode, and the term “we” becomes meaningful and practicable. The closer people are to those whom they’ve delegated authority and power, the less likely it is that those in power will abuse it.
With respect to energy policy specifically, I imagine you’ll agree that asking “why?” is a good start to the dirty energy problem. For instance, when the problem stated is that dirty energy is cheap, the immediate question to me is, “Why is it cheap?” More specifically, “What structural features allow it to be and keep it inexpensive so that alternatives are unprofitable?” Other questions might be, “Why is alternative energy so expensive, and why does it take an immense amount of capital to invest in it?”
If we can get to the bottom of why dirty energy is so cheap, and eliminate the incentives for it—tax structures, corporate welfare, and perverse incentives for oil companies—we might actually be able to see clean energy compete naturally, eventually putting dirty energy out of business, or minimize its usefulness. As it is, Big Oil enjoys a cozy relationship with the federal government. I think neither of us believes this is healthy, wise, or just. But rigging the economic structure of energy the opposite direction will likely have different problems (and maybe one’s we’re willing to live with), but is simply patchwork to the very torn and tattered fabric of energy policy.
You said you’ve studied this issue for quite a while and have acquaintances and friends with keen insight and knowledge. That’s great, and the truth needs to be spoken. But those folks “in the know” will not be the same folks making legislation (unless these people you know are politicians!). The incentives of a politician is not to have a cleaner earth, but to be re-elected and achieve political ends. They may say they care about the environment, and it may indeed be their heart’s desire. But power is an easy corrupter, and compromise (which is not always bad) often results in unintended negative consequences. Barack Obama campaigned on change, but he only has so much influence as President. I always cut politicians some slack because they can only follow through to advocate for what they promised. Actualized promises are few and far between (which is why I’m not a big fan of federal government solutions).
You are right that our Christian identity does not give us “exemption from our responsibility to our neighbors for the common good.” And it certainly does “obligate us to be involved with real passion and energy.” Our interactivity ought to lead us to mutual responsibility, which is why I typically advocate a more decentralized approach to where decisions are made and where power resides. The more centralized the power, the less likely justice will be actualized. There are possible exceptions, of course, but I hope you would agree that when people have their own power taken away from them (rather than their willingly delegating it), justice is not near.
Many thanks for your time!
Doug
Follow Us!